On game analyser you can hear the commentators talking up the player responses, at the game it looked like both teams thought it was no-try, I think that behind the goals angle is deceptive, guess it was 50/50 but it felt like we lost all the 50/50 calls

I think benefit of the doubt should go with what you are trying to see. For example, if you think he hasn't scored and can't see an angle where he has, you call it no-try. If you think he has scored and you can't get a definite option on an error, its a try. This benefit of doubt going to one side has given and will continue to given stupid results. It needs to be more flexible. If you have no opinion based on evidence, its a no-try.

southerntiger wrote:In my view, admittedly biased, he was well short when he grounded it. One angle showed that he was close bit was deceptive because of the angle. Definite no try for mine.
Exactly as i saw it, no evidence the ball touched the line especially at the angle shown.

tiger4ever wrote:I dont think glenn thought it was a try he was hanging around waiting to play the ball.That says it all

Thats normal though Tiger4ever . There was only going to be two logical conclusions . Try or play the ball on the 10 metre line . No use running 90 metres down field have it ruled no try and then come all the way back

I thought it was close enough to give it as benefit of the doubt. Did they only have 2 camera angles to judge it on? One was absolutely useless and the other was inconclusive. A higher angle looking down may have shown it clearly...

I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...